Free Will

[Shike]

…well, it actually would still be a contradiction. If eternity is one unchanging moment, it would be contradictory to say “I am in heaven with Derek and simultaneously I am in heaven without Derek.” It is logically impossible to be both of those things simultaneously within one moment.

Yes you are right, but only from the stance of temporality. You need to realize that God’s unchanging and eternal moment would “stretch” so-to-speak to cover both the times when Derek was and was not in heaven. Also, is it right to treat heaven as a place in the sense of spatio-temporal reality? When you say that God is “in” heaven it seems to imply that God is corporeal unless you understand the proper background.

I am having a hard time using language for this because we are really on the edge of what we can know through natural theology. That is why there is room for mystery that induces wonder and awe.

If God’s perspective (knowledge concerning his position in relation to other beings or his place in time, etc.) changed, it would not necessitate that the nature of God as it regards God’s knowledge had ever changed – the only possible way that the nature of God’s knowledge could change…

You switch from the nature of God to the nature of God’s knowledge. Which is it?

I actually stumbled upon Summa Theologica and my brain is getting exercised now. Thank you very much sir!

Wonderful! By the way, I took a ancient history of philosophy class in college and it greatly helped me by teaching me some of the technical terms that Aristotle, and hence Aquinas, employed. For instance, be careful whenever you read words such as: cause, causation, change, form, possibility, necessity, ect. They have very precise meanings that are not the same as contemporary philosophy and science. Let us know if you have questions!

Ciao,
Michael

 

[ivebeenshown]

You switch from the nature of God to the nature of God’s knowledge. Which is it?

Omniscience is an aspect of God’s nature, and in particular, this aspect regards God’s knowledge; omniscience is the quality of ‘knowing everything’, and so happens to be one of many qualities of God’s nature.

So as I was saying, if one piece of information (such as God’s perspective as it regards his position on a timeline relative to the past and the future) were to change, God would still know this information, and it would not in any way necessitate that there ever be a time where God ceases to know everything – and that would be the only way God’s nature could hypothetically change as it regards omniscience: one can either know everything, or not know everything.

 

[Shike]

Omniscience is an aspect of God’s nature, and in particular, this aspect regards God’s knowledge; omniscience is the quality of ‘knowing everything’, and so happens to be one of many qualities of God’s nature.

So as I was saying, if one piece of information (such as God’s perspective as it regards his position on a timeline relative to the past and the future) were to change,

And that is the problem we bump up against. God is atemporal, a fact necessitated by the conclusion that God is acorporeal. God is acorporeal because he is wholly simple, not composed of composite parts like corporality. In other words, His essence is His existence. If you want to indulge in a hypothesis, that is quite alright. Just let me know.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[ivebeenshown]

I want to understand/be enlightened to this concept (an atemporal God whose state of action/perspective undergoes no change) so badly! SO badly!

The reason is because it is the only thing keeping me from fully embracing God as existence itself (without embracing the heresy of pantheism.)

God is existence to its fullest and simplest extent. All other beings participate in his existence on a contingency and thus do not posses the nature of God. Therefore, no being can be said to be a god or share a part in godhead since they exist solely on a contingency. God’s essence precludes any addition absolutely. Prime matter (of which all material things are composed) has a nature in which nothing is required to be added to it: but not absolutely. Thus prime matter is predicated of all material things, but God is not.

See, that makes sense to me, if I ignore the struggle I am currently having with grasping atemporality. Once I get over this obstacle…

 

[ivebeenshown]

Scratch that, I now absolutely and firmly believe that God is existence itself, eternal and unchangingly so. Regardless of whether or not I can comprehend the ramifications of it, I will faithfully and firmly hold and profess this truth.

 

[Shike]

I want to understand/be enlightened to this concept (an atemporal God whose state of action/perspective undergoes no change) so badly! SO badly!

It’s very difficult, isn’t it? I do not fully understand myself, but I must keep coming back to the propositions that I know are true and see if any proposal contradicts them.

Sometimes I think we misunderstand what it means that God’s nature is unchanging. We tend to think of some kind of boring and static entity. But God is far from that! He has a dynamic yet unchanging nature. We must realize that the arguments that lead us to God not undergoing change are only a denial of the interaction between the principles of potentiality and actuality in God (this of course doesn’t mean that God couldn’t have created the universe, it only means that He created it without undergoing change… as hard or as impossible as that is to imagine; but at least it isn’t logically impossible). Talking theology proper here: besides, what does the doctrine of the Trinity tell us? Love is very dynamic!

By the way, I like what you quoted. It was very clear and concise and rang true with the little that I know. Where did it come from? [scratch that: it must be from Aquinas!]

God bless on your studies!

Ciao,
Michael

 

[ddarko]

…well, it actually would still be a contradiction. If eternity is one unchanging moment, it would be contradictory to say “I am in heaven with Derek and simultaneously I am in heaven without Derek.” It is logically impossible to be both of those things simultaneously within one moment.

Nothing could be “A” and “not A” simultaneously without being logically invalid.

I think your argument is reasonable given the premises are true.

But this is where I find issue. Why is it that you consider Derek to also be in an atemporal state? From my understanding, there is no dogmatic or definitive teaching of the Catholic Church on the location of heaven? Or am I mistaken?

So is it not more than likely that Derek is also in existence within a state where time exists? Considering human beings are physical and spiritual in nature, what does it mean to talk about being outside of time for a human being?

EDIT: There appears to be a thread on this very issue of whether heaven is outside of time.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548686

So it appears that heaven may well contain a notion of time which makes the original argument invalid and solve your dilemma .

God Bless

 

[ivebeenshown]

I think your argument is reasonable given the premises are true.

Well, let’s find out… I’m now set in my belief that God is atemporal and unchanging in any and all regards, so let’s see how to reconcile some of these things…

But this is where I find issue. Why is it that you consider Derek to also be in an atemporal state?

I am not sure, or sure that I understand, but neverminding that…

From my understanding, there is no dogmatic or definitive teaching of the Catholic Church on the location of heaven? Or am I mistaken?

Well, since God dwells in heaven, I am now assuming that heaven must not be any real location in relation to other locations, but rather the state of atemporality? I don’t know of any definitive teaching myself but with what I know now, this appears to be logical.

So is it not more than likely that Derek is also in existence within a state where time exists? Considering human beings are physical and spiritual in nature, what does it mean to talk about being outside of time for a human being?

Well, it is just hard to comprehend how an atemporal God interacts with a temporal universe… and that’s not even touching on Jesus Christ who existed within the temporal universe.

 

[ddarko]

Well, let’s find out… I’m now set in my belief that God is atemporal and unchanging in any and all regards, so let’s see how to reconcile some of these things…

I am not sure, or sure that I understand, but neverminding that…

Well, since God dwells in heaven, I am now assuming that heaven must not be any real location in relation to other locations, but rather the state of atemporality? I don’t know of any definitive teaching myself but with what I know now, this appears to be logical.

Well, it is just hard to comprehend how an atemporal God interacts with a temporal universe… and that’s not even touching on Jesus Christ who existed within the temporal universe.

Well I am not arguing God is atemporal. I think that is a must as a necessity from revelation and from things we know. i.e. From physics and metaphysics, time and space needs a beginning prior to which it is a state of non-being. So God was outside of time then since time does not exist.

But with respect to heaven, there is no reason to believe that heaven as being in an atemporal state. In fact, I think it does not make sense. For if heaven was an atemporal place, then it would have existed prior to God creating it.

As for how God interacts with temporal realities, I am not sure what the difficulty is. Since God in his omniscience and Divine Providence may have already pre-planned everything at the moment of creation, God does not need to change to make adjustments in his plans dynamically. No?

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

No, I am not forgetting that God is the uncreated Creator. And it makes no sense to compare me to Heraclitus when I have acknowledged numerous times that God’s divine nature is immutable, constant, eternally unchanging – omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.

Yet you asked:

Why is it necessary that God cannot have a **changing **perspectiveor state of action?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yet you asked:

That’s before I understood that his nature was his actual existence.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

That’s before I understood that his nature was his actual existence.

Feel comfortable with this thread and received good replies thus far. Had a quick look at the St Thomas Summa, and will read parts of it later, for reasons of my own.

Do you know, or does the following seem to be within reasonable understandings.Does the following defy or contradict popular thought re the unchanging God.

Gods inner or internal state, is in a perpetual state of perfect change . “Since” this active state within God is without deficiency, the nature or existence of God , does not change.
Relative to God himself , an internal perfect change which comprises his perfect existence. Since the internal faultlessness is without development and perfect, we then uncover the Ultimate Spirit in its unchanging yet unfolding perfect reality, within itself.

Theres a reason for my thinking above and I’m curious about the overall sensibility available, from alternate perspective. Thank you.

Also if someone has time…I asked on another thread as to what the Beatific Vision is all about and exactly where this term came from. I don’t want to google it because I simply would rather hear what this is about from a live human being

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Part 2 ( since nobody’s saying anything)

The Trinity, an unchanging perfect and unfolding active reality, always IS, hence always was, and will always infinitely BE.

The All Knowing is infinite, in all reality, infinite and temporal. Thus, Divine perspective is only relative to All that IS, within Gods all knowing.

All knowing certain to be, in All alone…

A simplicity in perspective by means of a singular focus…

In the solace of prayer and good charitable works, Gods All knowing , knows ourselves in our temporal & infinite wholeness together at once, as the All knowing God in pure consciousness can only know.

In our intimate association with God,we recognize the reception of ourselves, “our whole self” both temporal & infinite. The warmth of Gods Love in this whole reception of ourselves, is then reflected in an active unfolding peace, The Holy Spirit , throughout our conscious awareness.

Since God only knows our whole selves, he can only reference our entirety both temporal and everlasting at once.

Therefore, God can only be Love and acceptence,as each soul is not relative in measure to God, but complete.Complete in the Divinely intended.

Our free will, allows for Gods available participation.
Participation always impatient for being what in essence God. IS, Love

God is Love and Acceptance (period)

He does not kick us when we are down. The consequence’s of our actions are a result of choice or, free will.

 

[ddarko]

God is Love and Acceptance (period)

He does not kick us when we are down. The consequence’s of our actions are a result of choice or, free will.

You ask what the Beatific Vision is in the previous post and then you go and say something like the above as if YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN i.e. “God is love and acceptance (period)”.

God is not simply love and acceptance. God is GOOD, God is JUST, God is Omnipotent, God is Omniscient etc. Why you keep writing God is acceptance is anyones guess.

titles and attributes of God
Almighty (see God: Almighty God)
Father, 233, 238-40, 2779-85, 2794-96, 2802

    God of the living, <a href="../p123a11.htm#993">993</a>
    Good, <a href="../p1s2c1p5.htm#339">339</a>, <a href="../p1s2c1p7.htm#385">385</a>, <a href="../p3s2.htm#2052">2052</a>
    Holy, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#208">208</a>, <a href="../p2s2c1a3.htm#1352">1352</a>

    Ineffable mystery, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#230">230</a>
    Living, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#205">205</a>, <a href="../p3s2c1a1.htm#2112">2112</a>, <a href="../p4s1c1a1.htm#2575">2575</a>
    Love, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#214">214</a>, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#218">218-21</a>, <a href="../p1s2c1p2.htm#257">257</a>, <a href="../p1s2c1p5.htm#342">342</a>

    Merciful, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#210">210-11</a>
    Pure Spirit, <a href="../p1s2c1p6.htm#370">370</a>
    Righteous, <a href="../p1s1c2a1.htm#62">62</a>, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#215">215</a>, <a href="../p1s2c1p3.htm#271">271</a>, <a href="../p4s1c1a1.htm#2577">2577</a>

    Source of every good and of all love, <a href="../p3s1c1a2.htm#1723">1723</a>, <a href="../p3s1c3a1.htm#1955">1955</a>, <a href="../p3s2c2a8.htm#2465">2465</a>
    Source of prayer, <a href="../p4s1c1a3.htm#2639">2639</a>
    Truth, <a href="../p1s2c1p1.htm#214">214-17</a>

 

[tonyrey]

Yet you asked:

Understood! God is Love - which is dynamic not static…

 

[Called2Victory]

We cannot predict where an electron will be positioned (quantum physics), however we can put a man on the moon (classical Newtonian physics).

Why should God appear less complicated to us?

 

[Shike]

Gods inner or internal state, is in a perpetual state of perfect change . “Since” this active state within God is without deficiency, the nature or existence of God , does not change.
Relative to God himself , an internal perfect change which comprises his perfect existence. Since the internal faultlessness is without development and perfect, we then uncover the Ultimate Spirit in its unchanging yet unfolding perfect reality, within itself.

You ask a fair question and it should not go unnoticed. I will preface my response with I’m not entirely sure, but at first reading…

I think it’s misleading to use the combination “perfect change”. Under the Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics “change” is the interaction between two principles, act and potency (which mirrors what we understand “change” to be). We learn from some of the initial arguments for God’s existence that God doesn’t have the interaction between these two principles. Therefore, God would not undergo “change” thus understood.

Given if this is the case, one could redefine “change” to not include the interaction between act and potency and highlight that fact by adding the word “perfect” in front of it, but it is misleading in natural discourse, and would always have to be defined when discussing with new parties.

What do you think?

ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

You ask a fair question and it should not go unnoticed. I will preface my response with I’m not entirely sure, but at first reading…

I think it’s misleading to use the combination “perfect change”. Under the Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics “change” is the interaction between two principles, act and potency (which mirrors what we understand “change” to be). We learn from some of the initial arguments for God’s existence that God doesn’t have the interaction between these two principles. Therefore, God would not undergo “change” thus understood.

Given if this is the case, one could redefine “change” to not include the interaction between act and potency and highlight that fact by adding the word “perfect” in front of it, but it is misleading in natural discourse, and would always have to be defined when discussing with new parties.

What do you think?

ciao,
Michael

Excellent point. Looked up the word change :

Change :Alteration, substitution of one for the other, variety.
What may be substituted for another, make or become different…

Perfect change will not due & not what was intended in light of all, in above.

I agree and it would be difficult to argue with TonyR , in description used non-static.

Gods essence or existence would not exist in an… in-active state of rest. (static)

Activity proper, is required.in order to avoid a dormant essence.

Affording an unchanging God an activity proper, with necessary parity or equilibrium unfolds “a perfect uninterrupted continuous” in an active God’s existence - essense, nature.

Above better expresses my intended thought.

.

 

[shaky]

You ask a fair question and it should not go unnoticed. I will preface my response with I’m not entirely sure, but at first reading…

I think it’s misleading to use the combination “perfect change”. Under the Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics “change” is the interaction between two principles, act and potency (which mirrors what we understand “change” to be). We learn from some of the initial arguments for God’s existence that God doesn’t have the interaction between these two principles. Therefore, God would not undergo “change” thus understood.

Given if this is the case, one could redefine “change” to not include the interaction between act and potency and highlight that fact by adding the word “perfect” in front of it, but it is misleading in natural discourse, and would always have to be defined when discussing with new parties.

What do you think?

ciao,
Michael

You have to ask why did God in the first place tell Moses he will lead him into the Promise land.
The latter God CHANGED his Mind and said to Moses i will not lead you into the Promise Land.

 

[ddarko]

You have to ask why did God in the first place tell Moses he will lead him into the Promise land.
The latter God CHANGED his Mind and said to Moses i will not lead you into the Promise Land.

This could be just a matter of perception from the part of the Israel people.

In actuality, God would have known that Moses would not be allowed in to the promised land at the moment of creation.

God Bless